1. Title, director and release year?
The Corporation, Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan, 2003 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film examines the history and current impacts of the modern day corporation. It discusses the emergence of corporations and the trans-formative impacts they have had over the last 300 years of their existence. In the 1700's corporations could only exist if they could prove themselves useful to the public good. Corporate productivity and power drove the industrial revolution we all benefit from today. However, the film marks the end of the Civil War as a turning point for corporate interest, when corporate forces exploited anti-slavery laws as grounds to define a corporation by law, as human.
This film argues this movement away from the care of shareholders (all those affected by a corporation) to the care of stockholders (all those invested in the corporation) as stealing once ordained human rights. These rights are stolen from the people to feed capital and prosperity. It is this movement that shapes global corporations today resulting in a matrix of issues touched on throughout the film.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Corporate structure in our global society is so all-encompassing, each of the 10 categories of sustainability issues are present within each topic presented by the film. Political and Legal issues are exemplified through the pervasive corporate techniques to stretch laws for their own benefit. Exploiting anti-slavery laws to gain law protection intended for humans and GE's "life" patent are two examples drawn out in this realm. Relating to these issues is the organizational dis-functionality allowing these laws to be passed. Chief Justice Burger announced the decision to allow the patent of life forms "a small decision...patent anything alive as long as it's not a human."
Illustrated through the two Fox News journalists the film discusses corporate power over media, information, and societal education. The inclusion of "news" in a television program's title con notates truth and reporter honestly which I'm sure to the shock of many viewers, is not required by law. After reporters filed against Fox News for requiring them to lie on the air, Fox won the case with the ruling that reporting incorrect information and hiding the truth is within Fox New's legal rights.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The Fox News ruling was an extremely compelling case study, specifically when we discover our criminal justice system permits such behavior. It is not illegal for Fox News to hide the truth from their viewers and not only report a water downed version of the story, but actually incorrect information!! Why does our government - parliament and court justice system exist if it is not for the protection and health of the public? It appears lawmakers and enforcers exist to promote free enterprise whether harmful or not to citizens. Court Justices should not have ruled in favor of Fox News whether they were actually breaking the law or not. Business professions must remember that along with their specific job, they are people as well- that we are all people and should always look out for one another. It may not have been appropriate for Justices to rule against fox news if they were in fact not breaking the law. However, professionals must remove themselves so slightly from their role and view themselves as humans with ethics and morals. Whether specifically written in law or not we as humans believe it wrong to lie, it should be assumed, though not specifically stated, that the original lawmakers hold this same belief as well. Perhaps it was not specifically written in journalism law because it seemed so obviously illegal to lie to your audience about their health and then have the audacity to call it "news." From this case, justices should have recognized a loophole or gap in law writing and immediately fixed the situation.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
From this particular case (Fox News) i am compelled to discover just how often rulings like this have occurred not just in the media but in other areas of social issues. Monsanto seed patent laws are also a very interesting topic that i would like to spend some time researching. Patent laws themselves are crippling to single entrepreneurs or inventors because they are timely and therefore, expensive to acquire. Patents are dominated by massive corporations who sit on them merely to file Intellectual Property lawsuits on small entrepreneurs for patent law violation. The industry of Patent Sharking rose.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? I liked a lot about the film, i didn't pay attention to anything less convincing.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? This was a very approachable film to view. I would say it is viewable by any audience who would receive just as much insight and retain just as much information from it regardless of prior knowledge and interests. I do believe the film is likely to stick with viewers long after the final scene.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? I don't recall actions specifically promoted by the film yet i was left captivated by the content presentation. Collectively, the film perfectly portrays the inner-workings and interconnectivity of diverse environmental and social sustainability issues as related to Incorporated America. I felt so inspired by the film to read a David Rushkoff book called Life Inc. echoing in greater detail the history and challenges of corporate life. The book cleverly focuses on the loss of the individual and surrender of original conscious decision making to campaign groups. I haven't finished it yet but the cover promises a written solution of how to take the world back from corporate hands, so i'll be sure to comment once I've read the secret answer. Personally, the film pushed me to act on discovering further information and understand more of the issues.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? I would have like to hear more about the Bolivian water privatization case. The sustainability issue of land privatization and product ownership is a complex aspect to the rise of corporatism. It would have been very interesting if the film had a greater focus on corporate ownership becoming the overused solution to increase environmental maintenance and care. I also would of liked to learn more about the historical shift from the collectivist medieval period to privatized colonialism.
1. Title, director and release year?
The Corporation, Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan, 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film examines the history and current impacts of the modern day corporation. It discusses the emergence of corporations and the trans-formative impacts they have had over the last 300 years of their existence. In the 1700's corporations could only exist if they could prove themselves useful to the public good. Corporate productivity and power drove the industrial revolution we all benefit from today. However, the film marks the end of the Civil War as a turning point for corporate interest, when corporate forces exploited anti-slavery laws as grounds to define a corporation by law, as human.
This film argues this movement away from the care of shareholders (all those affected by a corporation) to the care of stockholders (all those invested in the corporation) as stealing once ordained human rights. These rights are stolen from the people to feed capital and prosperity. It is this movement that shapes global corporations today resulting in a matrix of issues touched on throughout the film.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Corporate structure in our global society is so all-encompassing, each of the 10 categories of sustainability issues are present within each topic presented by the film.
Political and Legal issues are exemplified through the pervasive corporate techniques to stretch laws for their own benefit. Exploiting anti-slavery laws to gain law protection intended for humans and GE's "life" patent are two examples drawn out in this realm. Relating to these issues is the organizational dis-functionality allowing these laws to be passed. Chief Justice Burger announced the decision to allow the patent of life forms "a small decision...patent anything alive as long as it's not a human."
Illustrated through the two Fox News journalists the film discusses corporate power over media, information, and societal education. The inclusion of "news" in a television program's title con notates truth and reporter honestly which I'm sure to the shock of many viewers, is not required by law. After reporters filed against Fox News for requiring them to lie on the air, Fox won the case with the ruling that reporting incorrect information and hiding the truth is within Fox New's legal rights.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The Fox News ruling was an extremely compelling case study, specifically when we discover our criminal justice system permits such behavior. It is not illegal for Fox News to hide the truth from their viewers and not only report a water downed version of the story, but actually incorrect information!! Why does our government - parliament and court justice system exist if it is not for the protection and health of the public? It appears lawmakers and enforcers exist to promote free enterprise whether harmful or not to citizens. Court Justices should not have ruled in favor of Fox News whether they were actually breaking the law or not. Business professions must remember that along with their specific job, they are people as well- that we are all people and should always look out for one another. It may not have been appropriate for Justices to rule against fox news if they were in fact not breaking the law. However, professionals must remove themselves so slightly from their role and view themselves as humans with ethics and morals. Whether specifically written in law or not we as humans believe it wrong to lie, it should be assumed, though not specifically stated, that the original lawmakers hold this same belief as well. Perhaps it was not specifically written in journalism law because it seemed so obviously illegal to lie to your audience about their health and then have the audacity to call it "news." From this case, justices should have recognized a loophole or gap in law writing and immediately fixed the situation.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
From this particular case (Fox News) i am compelled to discover just how often rulings like this have occurred not just in the media but in other areas of social issues.
Monsanto seed patent laws are also a very interesting topic that i would like to spend some time researching. Patent laws themselves are crippling to single entrepreneurs or inventors because they are timely and therefore, expensive to acquire. Patents are dominated by massive corporations who sit on them merely to file Intellectual Property lawsuits on small entrepreneurs for patent law violation. The industry of Patent Sharking rose.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I liked a lot about the film, i didn't pay attention to anything less convincing.
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This was a very approachable film to view. I would say it is viewable by any audience who would receive just as much insight and retain just as much information from it regardless of prior knowledge and interests. I do believe the film is likely to stick with viewers long after the final scene.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
I don't recall actions specifically promoted by the film yet i was left captivated by the content presentation. Collectively, the film perfectly portrays the inner-workings and interconnectivity of diverse environmental and social sustainability issues as related to Incorporated America. I felt so inspired by the film to read a David Rushkoff book called Life Inc. echoing in greater detail the history and challenges of corporate life. The book cleverly focuses on the loss of the individual and surrender of original conscious decision making to campaign groups. I haven't finished it yet but the cover promises a written solution of how to take the world back from corporate hands, so i'll be sure to comment once I've read the secret answer. Personally, the film pushed me to act on discovering further information and understand more of the issues.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have like to hear more about the Bolivian water privatization case. The sustainability issue of land privatization and product ownership is a complex aspect to the rise of corporatism. It would have been very interesting if the film had a greater focus on corporate ownership becoming the overused solution to increase environmental maintenance and care. I also would of liked to learn more about the historical shift from the collectivist medieval period to privatized colonialism.